No need to know anything..

On 2011.01.10 23:56 , wrote:
On 1/10/2011 7:29 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2011.01.10 12:28 , wrote:
On 1/9/2011 6:35 PM, Alan Browne wrote:


But in the end, why should it offend you so much? Really, you have your
photographic goals so go ahead and focus on that.

One area though where I notice nobody assigning equipment to the result
is cooking: When you make something delicious nobody ever mentions the
stove, the cookware or such, it's simply "Wow, that was great! Can I
have the recipe?"



Offended isn't my reaction, it's more just irritating. If they asked

Irritated, offended, whatever. Wasted emotion?



There is quite a difference between offended and irritated. I'm not
taking it personally if I am irritated. I want to help them but I can't.
I sure don't get upset, it's just frustrating trying to help someone who
has been brainwashed by advertising into thinking it's ALL what camera
you own.

There is nothing more wasteful to your spirit than worrying about why
other people don't get it as you do. Horses to water, etc.

Actually you can see this very thing with some of the 'accomplished'
photographers when reading these forums, especially the Dslr ones.
Unless you own brand X model Y with Z lens, you can't possibly get
decent results.

Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about others
attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography much more.

The "My brand is better than your brand" wars predate DSLR's by a very
long period. DSLR's have increased the numbers, but not the flavour.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 2011.01.10 21:19 , shiva das wrote:

In 1887 [George] Eastman developed a new camera that he hoped would find
a mass market. At a mere 6? by 3? by 3? inches, it was a small fraction
of the size of the camera he had bought 10 years earlier, and it cost
half as much. He named it the Kodak because he liked the letter K,
wanted a name that both began and ended with it, and wanted a word that
was unique and easily remembered.

Unlike that first [wet collodion process] camera of his, the Kodak came
loaded with a roll of film that could take 100 photographs. Then the
owner simply sent the camera and film back to Eastman, who returned it
with the finished prints and a new roll of film in the camera. George
Eastman had invented the photo-finishing business.

One more piece of the puzzle was needed to make photography a
mass-market business. Eastman had to convince the public that it could
handle what had always been a very complicated technology [wet collodion
or dry plate]. He turned the trick with what is universally regarded as
one of the greatest slogans in advertising history: ³You press the
button, we do the rest.² The new Kodak was a sensation, and George
Eastman became fabulously rich.

A good take on the origins. However, in a sense we have to thank George
for his endeavours and vision. It helped start photography down a very
affordable path that led to the first 35mm cameras.



--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 1/9/2011 5:35 PM, Alan Browne wrote:


One area though where I notice nobody assigning equipment to the result
is cooking: When you make something delicious nobody ever mentions the stove, the cookware or such,
it's simply "Wow, that was great! Can I have the recipe?"


Not on TV. On some shows, for example on Bravo, product placement is very, very obvious.

Doug McDonald

On 1/11/2011 8:12 AM, Alan Browne wrote:


Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about others
attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography much more.


Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach them things
I understand improves my life more that focusing on myself and my needs,
YMMV.

Stephe

On 1/11/2011 5:29 AM Alan Browne spake thus:

On 2011.01.10 21:19 , shiva das wrote:

In 1887 [George] Eastman developed a new camera that he hoped would
find a mass market. At a mere 6? by 3? by 3? inches, it was a small
fraction of the size of the camera he had bought 10 years earlier,
and it cost half as much. He named it the Kodak because he liked
the letter K, wanted a name that both began and ended with it, and
wanted a word that was unique and easily remembered.

Unlike that first [wet collodion process] camera of his, the Kodak
came loaded with a roll of film that could take 100 photographs.
Then the owner simply sent the camera and film back to Eastman, who
returned it with the finished prints and a new roll of film in the
camera. George Eastman had invented the photo-finishing business.

One more piece of the puzzle was needed to make photography a
mass-market business. Eastman had to convince the public that it
could handle what had always been a very complicated technology
[wet collodion or dry plate]. He turned the trick with what is
universally regarded as one of the greatest slogans in advertising
history: ³You press the button, we do the rest.² The new Kodak was
a sensation, and George Eastman became fabulously rich.

A good take on the origins. However, in a sense we have to thank George
for his endeavours and vision. It helped start photography down a very
affordable path that led to the first 35mm cameras.

Well, I guess. I certainly agree with your first statement. However, I
think that in no way was (or even is, perhaps) 35mm the /sine qua non/
of photography that you (implicitly) make it out to be.

I'd guess, maybe even bet, that *far* more images were taken on other
formats than 35mm, certainly up to, say, the 1960s: 116, 120, etc. You
know, the formats that the great unwashed public used. "Miniature"
cameras (35mm) were pretty much a novelty or a speciality for a long,
long time after Mr. Eastman popularized photography.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

On 2011.01.11 10:31 , Doug McDonald wrote:
On 1/9/2011 5:35 PM, Alan Browne wrote:


One area though where I notice nobody assigning equipment to the result
is cooking: When you make something delicious nobody ever mentions the
stove, the cookware or such,
it's simply "Wow, that was great! Can I have the recipe?"


Not on TV. On some shows, for example on Bravo, product placement is
very, very obvious.

I'm sure you're right.

But, the context of the paragraph was people's reactions to particular
photos, or above, cooking.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 2011.01.11 14:19 , wrote:
On 1/11/2011 8:12 AM, Alan Browne wrote:


Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about others
attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography much more.


Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach them things
I understand improves my life more that focusing on myself and my needs,

Certainly. But that isn't what I was addressing.

Above, I was replying to your statement:

" Actually you can see this very thing with some of the
'accomplished' photographers when reading these forums,
especially the Dslr ones. Unless you own brand X model Y
with Z lens, you can't possibly get decent results. "

That is something not worth worrying about.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 1/11/2011 4:56 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2011.01.11 14:19 , wrote:
On 1/11/2011 8:12 AM, Alan Browne wrote:


Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about others
attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography much more.


Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach them things
I understand improves my life more that focusing on myself and my needs,

Certainly. But that isn't what I was addressing.

Above, I was replying to your statement:

" Actually you can see this very thing with some of the
'accomplished' photographers when reading these forums,
especially the Dslr ones. Unless you own brand X model Y
with Z lens, you can't possibly get decent results. "

That is something not worth worrying about.



Actually I don't "worry" and don't get into debates with them or even
read those forums anymore, its just those clowns perpetuate this crap
was my point. Most just parrot what the manufacturers spew out.

On the kodak example, what they did WAS ground breaking compared to the
wet plate and other types of early photography. I don't see that as
being hype like what I was talking about.

Stephey

On 2011.01.12 6:15 , wrote:
On 1/11/2011 4:56 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2011.01.11 14:19 , wrote:
On 1/11/2011 8:12 AM, Alan Browne wrote:


Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about others
attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography much more.


Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach them things
I understand improves my life more that focusing on myself and my needs,

Certainly. But that isn't what I was addressing.

Above, I was replying to your statement:

" Actually you can see this very thing with some of the
'accomplished' photographers when reading these forums,
especially the Dslr ones. Unless you own brand X model Y
with Z lens, you can't possibly get decent results. "

That is something not worth worrying about.



Actually I don't "worry" and don't get into debates with them or even
read those forums anymore, its just those clowns perpetuate this crap
was my point. Most just parrot what the manufacturers spew out.

Your language remains emotional. Waste.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 1/12/2011 5:16 AM Alan Browne spake thus:

On 2011.01.12 6:15 , wrote:

On 1/11/2011 4:56 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

On 2011.01.11 14:19 , wrote:

On 1/11/2011 8:12 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

Whatever. Focus on _your_ photography and don't worry about
others attitudes, and, IMO, you'll enjoy life and photography
much more.

Actually I've found helping other people and trying to teach
them things I understand improves my life more that focusing on
myself and my needs,

Certainly. But that isn't what I was addressing.

Above, I was replying to your statement:

" Actually you can see this very thing with some of the
'accomplished' photographers when reading these forums,
especially the Dslr ones. Unless you own brand X model Y with Z
lens, you can't possibly get decent results. "

That is something not worth worrying about.

Actually I don't "worry" and don't get into debates with them or
even read those forums anymore, its just those clowns perpetuate
this crap was my point. Most just parrot what the manufacturers
spew out.

Your language remains emotional. Waste.

You're chiding someone for having a strong opinion about something you
don't care much about: doesn't that strike you as a bit absurd? And
probably a waste as well?


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.